International Journal of Languages, Literature and Linguistics, Vol. 2, No.
3, September 2016
A Cross-Cultural Study of Apology Speech Act
Realizations
Nawamin Prachanant
AbstractDifferent cultural backgrounds may perform
different semantic formulas. This study aimed to investigate the
occurrences of apology speech acts in two dimensions of
semantic formulas: frequency and pattern. The participants for
this study were 32 English native speakers and 32 Thai EFL
learners, in a total of 64. Participants responded to 10
apologizing in a written discourse completion task (DCT) that
simulated apology-provoking situations. The responses from the
DCTs were coded according to the apology taxonomy. The data
were then analyzed according to the frequency and pattern of
the semantic formulas used by the two different groups of
participants. The findings revealed that the three most
frequently used semantic formulas of two groups were
Expression of apology, Offering repair, and Explanation,
respectively. Also, the three most patterns of semantic formulas
found in the two groups were Expression of apology + Offering
repair, followed by Expression of apology + Explanation,
and Expression of apology + Offering repair + Showing
concerns, respectively.
The findings suggest opportunities for building cross-cultural
communications across continents. The results have implications
for teaching and learning of English as an L2 in the
cross-cultural contexts.
Index TermsApology strategy, cross-cultural study, social
status, speech act.
I. INTRODUCTION
Since Hymes [1] first introduced the concept of
communicative competence, which is the ability to employ
linguistic forms in order to communicate appropriately in
social interaction, it has been recognized as important in the
development of the interlanguage of second or foreign
language learners. This has been the focus of the studies of
interlanguage pragmatics, the branch of second language
research which studies how nonnative speakers understand
and carry out linguistic actions in a target language, and how
they acquire second language (L2) knowledge [2]. It can be
said that successful and effective speaking of L2 learners is
not just a matter of using grammatically correct words and
forms, but also knowing when to use them and under what
circumstances [3], [4].
This has led to the study of cross-cultural and interlanguage
pragmatics which focuses on the study of non-native
speakers use and acquisition of linguistic patterns in a second
language [5]. Much attention in cross-cultural and
interlanguage pragmatics has been devoted to learners
performance of speech acts in the second language. Speech
Manuscript received March 28, 2016; accepted September 25, 2016.
Nawamin Prachanant is with Buriram Rajabhat University, Thailand
(e-mail: nawaminpt@yahoo.com).
doi: 10.18178/ijlll.2016.2.3.85
acts, as one way to investigate pragmatics are the basic or
minimal units of linguistic communication [6]. Requesting,
complimenting and apologizing are examples of speech acts
which demonstrate the intentions of the speakers. The ability
to perform various speech acts is an important part of the
development of communicative competence [7]. Therefore, a
substantial body of empirical research has emerged
describing speech acts performed by non-native speakers of
various linguistic and cultural backgrounds [4], [8]-[15].
In the past four decades, the speech act of apologies has
also been investigated cross-culturally and some similarities
and differences have been found between cultures in the use
of apologies [4], [8]-[11], [13]-[27]. The studies mentioned
above have been carried out in second or foreign language
learning situations. The studies which have been carried out in
Thai EFL situation are the studies of [13], [22]. They have
carried out studies on the use of apologies in a foreign
language learning situation with EFL learners in Thailand and
found out differences resulting from the culture of the
learners.
This study, therefore, attempts to provide some insights
into the norms and patterns of apology strategies used by
native English speakers (NE) comparing with the producing
of those strategies of Thai EFL learners. The findings of this
study could be of great help in the teaching and learning of
foreign languages in relation to cultures, like teaching Thai to
speakers of other languages or teaching English to Thais as
well as in developing a syllabus for communicative English
courses in order to enhance ones ability to communicate
effectively in a cross-cultural setting without facing any
communication breakdowns.
II. PURPOSES OF THE STUDY
1. To investigate the typical apology strategies produced by
English native speakers and Thai EFL learners.
2. To investigate the patterns of semantic formulas used by
English native speakers and Thai EFL learners.
III. THE SPEECH ACT OF APOLOGY
Apologies are expressive illocutionary act [28] and
convivial speech acts, the goal of which coincides with the
social goal of maintaining harmony between speaker and
hearer. Apologies typically occur post-event in an adjacency
pair and involve interactions in which the apologizer attempts
to restore harmony when an offence has been committed, but
there is also an element of face-saving involved with a
protective orientation towards saving the interlocutors face
and a defensive orientation towards saving ones own face
146
 International Journal of Languages, Literature and Linguistics, Vol. 2, No. 3, September 2016
[15].
Goffman [29] undertook the study of apologies which he
termed remedial interchanges, focusing on the description
of the remedial work necessary to transform the perceived
offensive meaning of an act into an acceptable one. Such a
task could be accomplished through accounts, apologies and
requests. Goffman states that a speaker can perform an
apology by: 1) expressing embarrassment; 2) stating his/ her
knowledge of proper behavior; 3) sympathizing with the
application of negative sanction; 4) repudiation of his/ her
own behavior; 5) showing contempt for oneself; 6) promising
to embrace the right way; and 7) proffering penance and
restitution.
Taking for granted that the act of apology is one type of
remedial work, Fraser [30] continued an analysis and
description of the semantic formulas which are used to
perform an apology. Fraser mentions that speakers apologize
not only by expressing regret (Im sorry), but also by
requesting forgiveness (Forgive me for ), by
acknowledging their responsibility (It was my fault.), by
promising forbearance (Itll never happen again.), or by
offering redress (Let me pay for the damages.). Fraser also
points out that in cases where social norms are broken,
speakers tend to add an account/ explanation of the situation
to their apology formula.
Using as a starting point Frasers description of the
semantic formulas employed in producing an apology,
Olshtain and Cohen [10] came up with a more detailed
classification, which constitutes the core of all the
categorizations used in the studies of apology. Olshtain and
Cohen describe apology as a speech act set which is
comprised of five potential semantic formulas as follows:
1. Expression of an Apology or Illocutionary Force
Indicating Device (IFID)-this formula can be classified into
three sub-strategies: expressing regret (e.g. I am sorry,),
offering apology (e.g. I apologize.), and requesting
forgiveness (e.g. Excuse me. / Forgive me.);
2. Acknowledgement of responsibility-there are three
sub-categories: accepting blame (e.g. Its my fault.),
expressing self-deficiency (e.g. I wasnt thinking.), and
recognizing that the other person deserves an apology (e.g.
You are right.);
3. Explanation or account-this formula varies according to
the context (e.g. I was sick. / There was an accident. / I forgot.
/ I had to work.);
4. Offer of repair-this formula occurs only in certain
contexts (e.g. Ill pay / Let me help you.);
5. Promise of forbearance-this formula occurs only in
certain contexts (e.g. It wont happen again.)
When offenders need to apologize, they have the previous
set of formulas as shown above to use/ explain in the offensive
act. On the other hand, when offenders do not need to
apologize, they have a number of options, which are classified,
but not analyzed by Olshtain and Cohen as follows:
1. No verbal reaction (opt out);
2. Denial of the need to apologize (e.g. No need for you to
get insulted);
3. Denial of responsibility-this formula can be categorized
into two types: not accepting the blame (e.g. It wasnt my
fault.), and blaming others (e.g. Its your fault.).
147
Olshtain and Cohens categorization of apology strategies
is developed and employed in studies of L1 and L2 in a
variety of languages [3], [9], [11], [13], [15], [21], [22], [24].
However, the most interesting study, which is utilized in the
present study, was conducted by Prachanant [13]. His study
was focused on how to respond to complaints in the hotel
business and he states that reactions to complaint in the hotel
business can be performed using one or more of twelve
apology strategies or semantic formulas. The semantic
classification of the twelve formulas is as follows:
1. Expression of Apology (e.g. I (do) apologize. / Im (very,
really, terribly, extremely) sorry. /Excuse me.);
2. Acknowledgement of Responsibility (e.g. Yes,
sir/madam./ Certainly! /All right. / I see./ Of course.)
3. Explanation (e.g. We were very busy this morning./
There were many orders this morning./ All the rooms are
occupied now.);
4. Offering Repair (e.g. Well inform them to be quiet. /
Well call to check for you. / Ill carry it out.);
5. Promise of Forbearance (e.g. Everything will be ready in
five minutes. / Hope that you can go to bed early as planned.
/ It will be done properly and under my supervision.);
6. Making a Suggestion (e.g. Please relax at the restaurant.
/ Would you like something to drink while you wait?);
7. Giving the Time Frame for Action (e.g. Just a moment,
please. / Please wait a few minutes.);
8. Showing concerns (e.g. Steak is medium? / Whats your
room number, please?);
9. Gratitude (e.g. Thank you. / Thanks for letting us know of
your inconvenience.);
10. Promise of Follow-up Action (e.g. I will investigate
how the incident occurred. / Could I call you tomorrow to ask
if the problem can be solved?);
11. Empathy (e.g. I understand how you feel about this. /
Madam, if I were you, I will be the same as your feeling.);
12) Repetition of Complaints (e.g. The TV cannot be
turned on? / You said that your room is disgusting?).
In conclusion, it can be seen that the apology strategies
analyzed by many researchers in the previous studies
reviewed are similar in use. Therefore, those apology
strategies are utilized as the conceptual framework for the
present study.
IV. PARTICIPANTS OF THE STUDY
The participants of the study were two different groups of
subjects: 32 native English speakers (NE) and 32 Thai EFL
learners (TEFL). The former included 19 males and 13
females, with ages ranging from 19 to 52. All of them came
from the U.S.A. The latter group included 12 males and 20
females, ranging in age from 22 to 48 years; they were all M.A.
English major students at Buriram Rajabhat University,
Thailand.
V. RESEARCH INSTRUMENT
The data were collected through a written Discourse
Completion Task (DCT). The DCT typically consists of a set
of brief situational descriptions designed to elicit a particular
speech act [31]. Subjects read the situation and then respond
 International Journal of Languages, Literature and Linguistics, Vol. 2, No. 3, September 2016
in writing to a prompt. The following is an example of a DCT
prompt as used in this study:
Situation: You have placed a shopping bag on the luggage
rack of a crowded bus. When the bus breaks, your bag falls
down and hits a humble woman.
You: _______________________________
The DCT consisted of 10 different situations, designed to
elicit apology strategies. Since the present study has been
conducted mainly in a specific situation based on the relative
power relationship and the social distance between the
interlocutors varied; the interlocutors were set as stranger and
intimate. In addition, the power relationship is high-low,
low-high and equal and the social distance is not close.
The DCT was written in English. The following are the 10
provoking-apology situations:
Situation 1: Borrowing the English book from a professor
(Low-high)
Situation 2: Asking a new trainee to answer the telephone
(High-low)
Situation 3: Forgetting a promise to see movie with close
friend (Equal-Equal)
Situation 4: Borrowing a car from your close friend and
having an accident (Intimate-Intimate)
Situation 5: A shopping bag falls and hits a humble woman
(Stranger-Stranger)
Situation 6: Spilling food on the customers clothes
(Low-high)
Situation 7: Smashing part of the new trainees laptop
(High-low)
Situation 8: Bumping the old woman who carries out some
fruits (Stranger-Stranger)
Situation 9: Having lunch with friend and burping
uncontrollably (Equal-Equal)
Situation 10: Pushing close friend and falling down on the
unclean ground (Intimate- Intimate)
After the design of the situations as well as the content of
the DCT was carefully thought out and thoroughly discussed
with native speakers of both languages in order to ensure they
were sufficiently natural, the instrument was pilot-tested by
six respondents: three from each group of the NE and Thai
EFL subjects. The main objectives of the pilot test were: 1) to
carry out a preliminary analysis in order to determine whether
the wording, the format and the setting of the situations would
present any difficulties; 2) to identify any problematic items
in the DCT and remove those elements which did not yield
usable data so that the respondents in the second phase would
experience no difficulties in answering the DCT; 3) to double
check that the DCT was clear to all respondents and that there
was no confusion as to what they were meant to do; 4) to
estimate how long it would take the respondent to answer the
apology-provoking situations; and 5) to ensure some sort of
validity of the DCT for the data collection and to check its
reliability. In other words, to make sure that the DCT is an
effective and dependable means of eliciting results which
would yield answers to the questions.
VI. DATA COLLECTION PROCEDURES
The researcher collected the Thai EFL data himself and had
148
the researchers friend who studied in the U.S.A. collect the
NE data. Before completing the DCT, both groups of subjects
were given the Informed Consent Form. They completed a
demographic questionnaire on their age, gender and years of
schooling. Similar to the completion of the Informed Consent
Form, both groups of subjects were asked to fill out the DCT.
Both groups were told to respond as naturally as possible
when completing each of the dialogues. The subjects were
also free to ask questions to the administrator regarding the
items in the DCT. No time limits were imposed on completing
the DCT.
VII. DATA ANALYSIS
This section explains how the semantic formulas of the
DCT data obtained from the subjects were coded. Also, it
describes the statistical procedures used to analyze the data.
A. Coding
The data collected from both groups were analyzed using
semantic formulas as units of analysis. All data from the
DCTs were coded according to the apology taxonomy
developed by Olshtain and Cohen [10] and Prachanant [13].
For example, in the situation where participants responded to
The borrowing a car from your close friend and having an
accident, a response such as "Im terribly sorry. I had an
accident. I will certainly be responsible for the damages and
costs", was analyzed as consisting of three units, each falling
into corresponding semantic formulas (as shown in the
brackets):
(1) I'm terribly sorry.
[apology]
(2) I had an accident
[Explanation]
(3) I will certainly be responsible for the damages
and costs.
[Offering repair]
When a particular response strategy to situation was used
more than once in a single response, each use was counted
independently.In addition, new types of strategies (semantic
formulas) were identified based on this study. To make sure
the semantic formulas were correct, three trained teachers of
English who were as independent raters, worked
independently on recoding, all of the apology strategies in
each response according to the initial coding performed by the
researcher. Generally, the intercoder reliability value should
be more than 80% [32]. For items on which there was
disagreement, all the coders reviewed the coding guidelines,
recoded the data together and discussed any discrepancies
until they reached a consensus. The intercoder reliability was
94%. After the coding was completed, the researcher
tabulated, quantified, and compared the main discourse
components between the two groups. Frequency was chosen
as the primary endpoint of this study.
B. Statistical Procedures
The semantic formulas employed by each group in
response to each DCT apology situation were analyzed. The
researcher then calculated the total number of frequencies of
the apology strategies occurring in each situation from each
group by using the percentages.
 International Journal of Languages, Literature and Linguistics, Vol. 2, No. 3, September 2016

VIII. FINDINGS circumstance.

e.g. - I will have it fixed immediately.
A. Apology Strategies Used by Native English Speakers - I will pay for all the damages.
and Thai EFL Learners - Please allow me to pay for the repair.
This part presents the frequency of apology strategies 3) Explanation: Explanation or account is a strategy used to
employed by 64 participants: 32 NE and 32 Thai EFL learners, give reasons why an unfavorable act has been performed. The
who were asked to respond to each of 10 apology-provoking following are the utterances from this study.
situations through the DCT. The overall frequency of e.g. - I dropped the laptop accidentally.
semantic formulas of each group is shown in Table I below. - I did some damage to your car while reversing.
Strategies are listed in descending order from reported as - I wasnt looking where I was going.
those most frequently used to those the least used based on the 4) Showing Concerns: This strategy is a strategy used to
total frequency counting of both groups. ask for some facts related to the unfavorable circumstance.
e.g. - Are you alright?
TABLE I: FREQUENCY OF APOLOGY STRATEGIES USED BY NE AND THAI - How did everything go?
EFL LEARNERS - I hope you are not hurt.
Thai EFL All Groups 5) Promise of Forbearance: This strategy is to inform the
NE (n=32)
Apology Strategies (n=32) Combined apologizers that an immediate repair can be expected/ will be
f % f % f %
1. Expression of
carried out. The apologizees will also undertake to do their
252 17.57 306 21.34 558 38.91
apology best to remedy the unfavorable circumstance.
2. Offering repair 167 11.65 148 10.32 315 21.97 e.g. - Im going to return the book tomorrow morning,
3. Explanation 98 6.83 129 9.00 227 15.83
4. Showing concerns 52 3.62 48 3.35 100 6.97 I promise.
5. Promise of
37 2.58 38 2.65 75 5.23 - I promise to return you today.
forbearance
6.Acknowledgement of
- I will bring it to you as soon as possible.
30 2.09 36 2.51 66 4.60 6) Acknowledgement of Responsibility: This strategy is to
responsibility
7. Offering help 29 2.02 18 1.26 47 3.28 draw the apologizees attention to acknowledge and accept
8. Gratitude 16 1.12 7 0.48 23 1.60
9. Amusement 14 0.98 0 0.00 14 0.98 the causes of the problems. The utterances used to accept a
10. Exclamation 4 0.28 5 0.35 9 0.63 problem are:
All Strategies
Combined
699 48.74 735 51.26 1,434 100.00 e.g. - It was my fault.
- Its my mistake
Table I shows the overall frequency of semantic formulas - I feel so stupid!
7) Offering Help: This strategy is used when the apologizer
reported of the two different groups: NE and Thai EFL groups
would like to offer help the apologizee for the unfavorable
through the DCT. The findings reveal that both groups
circumstance.
employed 10 different strategies with 1,434 frequencies of
e.g. - Can I assist you in any way?
semantic formulas. When considering each culture group, it
- Please let me help you pick up the fruits.
was found that the NE group employed 10 different strategies
- May I help you?
with 699 frequencies (48.74%) of semantic formulas; whereas,
8) Gratitude: This strategy is used when the apologizer
the Thai EFL group employed 9 such strategies with 735
would like to thank the apologizee for having informed him or
frequencies (51.26%) of semantic formulas; Amusement
her of the helping circumstance. Also, an expression of
was not reported to use. Examination of the overall
gratitude is employed when the apologizer wants to end the
frequencies of strategy use, however, indicates that the three
conversation with his/her interlocutor.
most frequently used strategies reported were: 1) Expression
e.g. - Thank you very much.
of apology (f= 558, 38.91%), followed by, Offering repair - Thank you for your help.
(f= 315, 21.97%) and Explanation (f= 227, 15.83%), - Thank you very much for covering the phone
respectively. The least two frequency strategies used, on the for me.
other hand, are Exclamation (f= 9, 0.63%), followed by 9) Amusement: This strategy is used when the apologizer
Amusement (f=14, 0.98%) which is found only in NE feel embarrassed when he/ she did the unfavorable things.
group. e.g. - I am such a pig!
The followings are the examples of the apology strategies - I cant control it (laugh)
found in this study. 10) Exclamation: This strategy is used when the apologizer
1) Expression of Apology: This strategy represents a feels surprising or shock with the unfavorable circumstance.
strategy used to maintain, or support the apologizers face. e.g. - Oh, my god!
In addition, it intends to remedy any threat to the - Oh, my Gosh!
apologizees negative face. The utterances, which serve as an
B. The Patterns of Semantic Formulas Used by the NE and
expression of apology, are as follows:
EFL Learners
e.g. - I (do) apologize.
- Im (very/ really/ terribly/ extremely) sorry. This part presents the patterns of apology strategies
- Excuse me. employed by 64 participants: 32 NE and 32 Thai EFL learners,
- Oops! who were asked to respond to each of 10 apology-provoking
2) Offering Repair: This strategy is used to provide the situations through the DCT. The ten most patterns of semantic
apologizers with help to repair or rectify the unfavorable formulas employed in each group are shown in Table II below.

149
 International Journal of Languages, Literature and Linguistics, Vol. 2, No. 3, September 2016

Patterns are listed in descending order from reported as those IX. DISCUSSION
most frequently used to those the least used based on the total
frequency counting of both groups. A. Apology Strategies Used by the NE and Thai EFL
Learners
TABLE II: PATTERNS OF SEMANTIC FORMULAS USED BY NE AND THAI EFL Examining the data presented in Table I, 10 apology
LEARNERS strategies were used by the NE and Thai EFL learners. The
NE (n=32)
Thai EFL All Groups three most strategies used were Expression of apology,
Apology Strategies (n=32) Combined
f % f % f %
Offering repair and Explanation. These findings are
1. Expression of consistent with the claims made by all linguists who
apology + Offering 82 15.10 94 17.31 176 32.41 conducted the studies on apology [4], [8], [10], [11],
repair
2. Expression of [13]-[16], [21], [22], [24], [26], [33]-[35] that with respect to
68 12.53 75 13.81 143 26.34
apology + Explanation the languages studies in their research, the three major
3. Expression of
apology + Offering + 32 5.89 30 5.53 62 11.42 semantic formulas mentioned were universal. Having said
Showing concerns that all these strategies were normally used by both the native
4. Expression of
apology
17 3.13 30 5.53 47 8.66 and non-native speakers of all varieties of English. This could
5. Explanation 24 4.42 18 3.31 42 7.73 be said that the situations employed in the present study are as
6. Expression of
apology + Offering 12 2.21 13 2.39 25 4.60
in the daily life so that the findings of those studies were
repair + Explanation similar in employing the strategies. This is similar to the
7. Acknowledgement of
responsibility
8 1.47 8 1.47 16 2.94 conclusion of Olshtain [16] that it seems to be possible to
8. Acknowledgement of identify universal manifestations of strategy selection. In
responsibility + Offering 7 1.28 6 1.11 13 2.39 addition, this strategy was claimed by Suszcynska [21] that it
repair
9. Offering repair 4 0.74 6 1.11 10 1.85 was commonly called for in most situation investigated. Also,
10. Expression of
4 0.74 5 0.92 9 1.66 the most explicit realization of apology strategy is
apology + Offering help
All Strategies Expression of apology which is called for in each situation
258 47.51 285 52.49 543 100.00
Combined by both two groups. This could be explained that both groups
have the perception that using Expression of apology is
As shown in Table II, it was found that both groups of compulsory in each apology; Im (intensifiers) sorry is the
participants employed the patterns of semantic formulas in most common used. This is consistent with the claims made
responding to the provoking-apology situations in the similar by Owen [17] that Expression of apology is the most
way. The three most frequently use of the patterns of semantic conventionalized and routinised, being as it was in the center
formulas employed by both groups were Expression of of the speech act of apologizing in the study and representing
apology + Offering repair with the frequencies of 176 verbal routine or syntactic semantic formula which are
(32.41%): NE =82 (15.10%), Thai EFL=94 (17.31%), regularly used to fulfill a specific communicative function.
followed by Expression of apology + Explanation with the
frequencies of 143 (26.34%): NE=68 (12.53%), Thai B. The Patterns of Semantic Formulas Used by the NE and
Thai EFL Learners
EFL=75(13.81%), and Expression of apology + Offering
repair + Showing concerns with the frequencies of 62 The finding revealed that the two most popular patterns
(11.42%): NE=32 (5.89%), Thai EFL=30 (5.53%), used of semantic formulas are Expression of apology +
respectively. Offering repair and Expression of apology + Explanation.
The followings are the examples of each pattern of This could be explained by the fact that both groups of the
semantic formulas: participants have the perception that using Expression of
1) Expression of apology + Offering repair-Im extremely apology is compulsory in each provoking-apology situation,
sorry. I will pay for all the damages. and Offering repair or Explanation should be called for in
2) Expression of apology + Explanation-Im sorry. I did order to decrease the offend of the apologizee. As Owen [17]
some damage to your car while reversing. stated that Expression of apology is the most
3) Expression of apology + Offering repair + Showing conventionalized and routinised, being as it was in the center
concerns-I apologize for that. I will buy some new fruits for of the speech act of apologizing in the study and representing
you. Are you okay? verbal routine or syntactic semantic formula which are
4) Expression of apology-Im terribly sorry. regularly used to fulfill a specific communicative function.
5) Explanation-I wasnt looking where I was going. This finding is similar to the studies of Tuncel [33], Istifci [34]
6) Expression of apology + Offering repair + Explanation - and Alfattah [35] who concluded that the three most patterns
So sorry, I will buy a new one for you. I dropped the laptop used in apology situations are IFID (Apology) +
accidentally. Explanation and IFID (Apology) + Promise and
7) Acknowledgement of responsibility-It is my mistake, forbearance and IFID (Apology) + Offering repair,
madam. respectively.
8) Acknowledgement of responsibility + Offering
repair-Oh, how clumsy I am! I will buy a new one for you.
9) Offering repair-I will take care of all damages.
X. CONCLUSION
10) Expression of apology + Offering help-Please accept
my apology. What can I help you? The results of this study suggested that in some situations
Thai EFL learners approached native speaker norms in the use

150
 International Journal of Languages, Literature and Linguistics, Vol. 2, No. 3, September 2016
of apology strategies. However, in some situations there were
different in the use of apologies. This may be assumed that L1
(Thai) have an influence on the use of apologies in Thai EFL
group. As mentioned in scope and limitation of the study, it is
difficult to generalize the findings because the data were
collected from 32 NE and 32 Thai EFL learners. However, the
findings from this study suggest opportunities for building
cross-cultural communications across continents. The results
have implications for teaching and learning of English as an
L2 in the cross-cultural contexts. That is, to raise pragmatic
awareness in the English classroom, language teachers should
introduce learners the clips of feature films or videotaped
television programs such as news shows and business talk
shows which illustrate various responses to apology
interaction or any other speech act behaviors between native
speakers of English [36], [37]. Using audiovisual media is
especially useful in an EFL environment like Thailand where
the authentic target language is not input from native speakers
of target language is not easily available. The teachers could
encourage the pragmatic awareness of learners by discussing
status relationships between the interlocutors, and by
comparing the differences, as well as the similarities between
the ways English speakers in the clips performed any given
speech act and the way learners would do so in Thai. This
kind of activity will help learners realize that speakers from
different cultures may not always share the same
sociolinguistic rules of performing speech acts as their own.
REFERENCES
[1] D. Hymes, Models of the interaction of language and social life, in
Directions in Sociolinguistics: The Ethnography of Communication,
J. J. Gumperz et al., Eds. NY: Newbury House, 1972, pp. 35-71.
[2] G. Kasper, Pragmatics transfer, Second Language Research, vol.
8, no. 3, pp. 203-231, 1992.
[3] E. Olshtain and A. Cohen, Teaching speech act behavior to
nonnative speakers, in Teaching English as a Second or Foreign
Language, M. Colce-Murcia, Ed. NY: Newbury House, 1988, pp.
154-165.
[4] M. Tamanaha. Interlanguage Speech Act Realization of Apologies
and Complaints: The Performances of Japanese L2 Speakers in
Comparison with Japanese L1 and English L1 Speakers, Doctoral
dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles, USA, 2003.
[5] G. Kasper and S. Blum-Kulka, Interlanguage pragmatics: An
introduction, in Interlanguage Pragmatics, G. Kasper and S.
Blum-Kulka, Eds. pp. 139-154, NY: Oxford University Press., 1993.
[6] J. R. Searle, Speech Acts, Cambridge University Press, 1969.
[7] J. Kwon, Pragmatic Transfer and Proficiency in Refusals of Korean
EFL Learners, Doctoral dissertation, Boston University, 2003.
[8] A. D. Cohen and E. Olshtain, Developing a measure of
sociocultural competence: The case of apology, Language
Learning, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 113-134, 1981.
[9] M. Mir, Do we all apologize the same?-An empirical study on the
act of apologizing by Spanish speakers learning English, in
Pragmatics and Language Learning, L. Bouton and Y. Kachru, Eds.
vol. 3, pp. 18-36, Urbana-Champaign: University of Illiniois, 1992.
[10] E. Olshtain and A. Cohen, Apology: A speech act set, in
Sociolinguistics and Language Acquisition, N. Wolfson and E.
Judd, Eds. pp. 18-35, New York: Newbury House, 1983.
[11] R. M. Reiter, Linguistic Politeness in Britain and Uruguay: A
Contrastive Study of Requests and Apologies, Philadelphia: John
Benjamins North America, 2000.
[12] T. Takahashi and L. Beebe, Cross-linguistic influence in the speech
act of correction, in Interlanguage Pragmatics, G. Kasper and S.
Blum-Kulka, Eds. pp. 138-157, Oxford University Press, 1993.
[13] N. Prachanant, Pragmatic Transfer in Responses to Complaints by
Thai EFL Learners in the Hotel Business, Unpublished PhD
Dissertation. Suranaree University of Technology, 2006.
[14] A. Trosborg, Apology strategies in native-nonnative speakers of
English, Journal of Pragmatics, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 147-167, 1987.
151
[15] Trosborg, Interlanguage Pragmatics: Requests, Complaints and
Apologies, Berlin: Mouton, 1995.
[16] E. Olshtain, Sociocultural competence and language transfer: The
case of apology, in Language Transfer in Language Learning, S.
Gass and L. Selinker, Eds. pp. 232-249, Newbury House, 1983.
[17] M. Owen, Apologies and Remedial Interchanges: A Study of
Language Use in Social Interaction, Mouton Publishers, 1983.
[18] S. Blum-Kulka, Learning how to say what you mean in a second
language: A study of the speech act performance of learners of
Hebrew as a second language, Applied Linguistics, vol. 3, pp.
29-59, 1982.
[19] A. D. Cohen, E. Olshtain, and D. S. Rosenstein, Advanced EFL
apologies: What remains to be learned? International Journal of
the Society of Language, vol. 12, no. 6, pp. 51-74, 1986.
[20] N. Maeshiba, N. Yoshinaga, G. Kasper, and S. Rose. Transfer and
proficiency in interlanguage apology, in Speech Act across
Cultures: Challenges to Communication in a Second Language, S.
Gass and J. Neu, Eds. pp. 155-187, Berlin: Mouton, 1996.
[21] M. Suszczynska, Apologizing in English, Polish and Hungarian:
Different languages, different strategies, Journal of Pragmatics,
vol. 31, no. 8, pp. 1053-1065, 1999.
[22] S. Intachakra, Contrastive pragmatics and language teaching:
Apologies and thanks in English and Thai, RELC Journal, vol. 35,
no. 1, pp. 37-62, 2004.
[23] S. Blum-Kulka, J. House, and G. Kasper, Investigating
cross-cultural pragmatics: An introductory overview, in
Cross-cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies, S.
Blum-Kulka, J. House and G. Kasper, Eds. pp. 1-37, 1989.
[24] J. Holmes. Apologies in New Zealand English, Language in
Society, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 155-199, 1990.
[25] E. Rintell and C. Mitchell, Studies of requests and apologies: An
inquiry into method, in Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and
Apologies, S. Blum-Kulka et al., Eds. pp. 248-272, 1989.
[26] H. J. Vollmer and E. Olshtain, The language of apologies in
German, in Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies,
S. Blum-Kulka, J. House and G. Kasper, Eds. pp. 197-218,
Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1989.
[27] M. L. Bergman and G. Kasper, Perception and performance in
native and nonnative apology, in Interlanguage Pragmatics, G.
Kasper et al., Eds. pp. 82-107, Oxford University Press, 1993.
[28] J. R. Searle, The classification of illocutionary acts, Language in
Society, vol. 5, pp. 1-24, 1976.
[29] E. Goffman, Relations in Public, New York: Harper & Row, 1971.
[30] Fraser, On apology, in Conversationalroutine, F. Coulmas, Ed.
pp. 259-271, The Hague: Mouton, 1981.
[31] G. Kasper and K. R. Rose, Pragmatics in language teaching, in
Pragmatics in Language Teahing, K. R. Rose and G. Kasper, Eds.
pp. 2-9, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.
[32] Wannaruk, Back-Channel Behavior in Thai and American Casual
Telephone Conversations, Doctoral Dissertation, University of
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, USA, 1997.
[33] R. Tunel, Speech Act Realizations of Turkish EFL Learners: A
Study on Apologizing and Thanking, Unpublished PhD Dissertation.
Anadolu Universitesi, SBE, 1999.
[34] Istifci, The use of apologies by EFL learners, English Language
Teaching, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 15-25, 2009.
[35] M. H. A. Alfattah, Apology strategies of Yemeni EFL university
students, MJAL, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 223-249, 2010.
[36] K. R. Rose, Pragmatics in Teacher Education for
Nonnative-Speaking Teachers: A Consciousness-Raising Approach,
Language, Culture and Curriculum, vol. 10, pp. 125-137, 1997.
[37] K. Tanaka, Developing pragmatic competence: A
learners-as-researchers approach, TESOL Journal, vol. 6, pp.
14-18, 1997.
Nawamin Prachanant is an Assistant Professor at
Buriram Rajabhat University, Thailand. He received a
B.Ed. with the 1st class honour from Srinakarinwirot
University Mahasarakham, an M.Ed. in English from
Mahasarakham University, and a Ph.D. in English
language studies from Suranaree University of
Technology, Thailand. Currently, he is the Chair of the
M.A. Programme in English at Buriram Rajabhat
University. His academic interests include discourse analysis,
sociolinguistics, speech acts, pragmatics, English for specific purposes and
course development.